Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/2013 appointments/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 two-time AUSC member and having access to OTRS, Steward-ship 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 follow the new practice of AUSC members not using their oversight and checkuser permissions. 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 and again from January 2013 to present. 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, Steward, WMF-wiki access, Internal-wiki access, OTRS info-en(f), permissions, photosubmissions, Sisterprojects, Oversight-en-wp, steward and DAL queues. Already identified to the Foundation.

Questions for this candidate
Optional question(s) from 


 * 1) As a member of AUSC, you will be a member of the functionary team. Do you believe functionaries should be held to a higher standard of conduct on the English Wikipedia and all WMF sites than an ordinary admin or editor? Explain. (Note that the scope of AUSC is only to investigate violations of the CU/OS policies). --Rschen7754 04:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A: Functionaries should be held to a higher standard of conduct, but are still humans. Functionaries should generally be expected to be more courteous, more willing to explain things, and more thoughtful in their actions, but should still be given the leeway to fail on a non-periodic basis in the same way any other person might.
 * 1) What are your views on how to handle underage editors sharing personal information? --Rschen7754 04:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A: Oversight it, tell them to stop sharing it, block them if they won't stop sharing it.
 * 1) What are some of the criteria you would use to determine if a CU check was valid? --Rschen7754 04:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A: I see a check as having three criteria behind it. First, was it performed in good-faith by an impartial checkuser. Second, was it based on a reasonable belief that it was in conformance with the checkuser policy. Third, did it advance a legitimate aim of the project.

Optional question(s) from 

4: To it's critics, at least, ArbCom has a reputation for keeping things secret when there is little or no valid reason to do so, and for making decisions (or, at the opposite end of the spectrum, not pursuing matters) with an eye towards the good of ArbCom's image first and the community's best interests second. Whether or not you agree with this assessment, it colors the way that members of the community would deal with you as an AUSC member. With this in mind, how do you balance the secrecy that AUSC work entails with the community's best interests, which may not always be best served by that secrecy? Is there ever a time for willfully ignoring the requirements that AUSC-related discussions be kept secret?
 * A: At the end of the day, AUSC is an extension of Arbcom and is limited in that regard, so it's not really up to me to balance the secrecy of matters. Arbcom, the community-elected representatives, already balanced it when they created AUSC and through their administration of the functionaries arrangement and my job is to follow the established process, not to substitute my own judgment for how things should work. I can't imagine a circumstance where it would be appropriate to ignore the requirements that AUSC-related discussions be kept secret. Possibly with the consent of the five other members and the complainant/functionary, but even that I'm not certain would permit full disclosure of all discussions related to a matter.

5: Do you currently have any aspirations for running for Arb in the next election?
 * A: No.

6: Having served in this role previously, and having amassed a sizable collection of advanced permissions, it would not be unreasonable to wonder whether or not you still have the 'outsider's point of view' and 'critical eye towards functionaries' that are in my and many other people's minds a good deal of the reason behind having non-Arb members of AUSC in the first place. How would you respond to such a concern?
 * A: I actually think that having served in this role previously and having advanced permissions provides a more independent position. I don't have to worry about running for more elections in the future and having userrights independent of Arbcom (steward/OTRS) makes it far less likely I'll restrain myself out of fear of their "wrath."

7. Lately, certain segments of the community have repeatedly asked for more information regarding material that has been suppressed. If you were to receive a request from a community member asking for more information regarding a suppressed edit, i.e. who suppressed it, what the logged reason was, etc, what would be your response? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A: My general response would be to provide a blanket summary of the logged reason, such as "Oh, someone edited while logged out" or "Yes, someone put up personal information." I would generally avoid disclosing the identity of the oversighter unless they made it clear (such as reverting the suppressed edit) or unless I had a chance to contact them first. Given its effect on the logs, there should be some response to validate that the action was not the product of a misclicked mouse, but not enough to otherwise deter oversighters from taking action in conformance with policy.

Optional question(s) from 

8 A recent decision by AUSC on a complaint I made stated "A Checkuser is not required to disclose alternate accounts they find to a blocked user nor are they required to disclose to the blocked user the precise evidence they used as the basis of the block". I, however, think that CheckUsers should always be required to name at least one other related account when declaring an account to be a sock; that is, there should be a minimum level of publicly available evidence that socking has occurred. What is your opinion?
 * A: My opinion is that the checkuser tools exists to "protect Wikipedia against disruption, abuse, or vandalism." If a block is made as a result of a checkuser action and the checkuser action was valid and accurate, the required disclosure of "at least one other related account" would not advance the goal of protecting Wikipedia against disruption, abuse, or vandalism. The key to reviewing checkuser blocks is ensuring that they are accurate and impartial, not providing a user with the evidence of why they were blocked. This is because to do so would aid those seeking evade detection through the use of socks.

Optional question from 

9: It would be an understatement to say you take your AUSC objectivity seriously; even before ArbCom passed their recent motion on AUSC CU/OS usage you'd made it clear that you do not use your functionary tools while serving on the subcommittee, and your interpretation of the circumstances under which an AUSC member may use their tools is arguably more strict than ArbCom's. However, judging from this, it's clear that your abstinence from using them is not absolute: You've made use of your CheckUser tool on three occasions since (re-)joining the subcommittee, and your Oversight tool on 59. I'm sure that you had a good reason for all of these actions, and trust that you wouldn't have undertaken them unless they were unambiguously necessary. However, I'm curious as to where you see the line as falling. What's your personal threshold for when you use the tools or not? — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  10:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A: Sure thing. Those three checks were re-running the checks made by the checkuser in the case Surturz mentioned above so that I could determine the evidence the checkuser obtained was a reasonable basis for the block. The 59 suppressions I'm also a little miffed on. I re-joined AUSC on January 1, 2013 (at 22:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)) to be exact) and the last two date entries for me in Special:Log/suppress are:


 * 6:01, January 1, 2013
 * 20:57, December 31, 2012


 * The 6:01 entry was a regular "minor outing himself incident" after which I remembered I was now on AUSC and I told the person who requested it that I could no longer do those requests. I can't rightly explain where the other nine logged entries come from, but maybe someone else can on my talk page. My threshold remains that AUSC members should not use the tools to perform checkuser and oversight requests, but they may need to perform them in the process of reviewing a complaint to see if the determination made by the checkuser or oversighter was reasonable.
 * By the way, I hereby trout myself for reading the stats wrong... yes, it's only 10 since January 1, not 59. The missing 9 are easily explainable by a typo in the stats, so I'll take your word for it. (I also re-trout myself for being the one whose inadvertent perpetuation of a minor's self-outing you were cleaning up at 6:01 on January 1, if IRC chat logs are to be believed. Quelle coincidence.)  — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  12:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

10a: One of the aspects in your role as an auditor would be to evaluate claims of CUs releasing IPs by blocking an IP or IP range after blocking accounts. Where do you draw the line between protection of the Wiki where the CU needs to block the IP to prevent the abuse, and a user's privacy? -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  08:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A: There are many factors that go into it. Such as, how much the user has already disclosed about themselves, how much an IP block will target the user (will it flag their tiny employer?), how certain the CU is of the abuse, and how serious/imminent the abuse is. I would generally say that CUs are fine blocking the IP/IP range after an account block if the IP block is reasonably unlikely to lead to specific identification of the individual (not "OMG he uses a major British ISP!") or if the individual's misconduct is of a sufficiently threatening nature that he could not reasonably expect maintenance of his privacy in the face of the threat he created (such as if he were running a spambot attack).

10b: Also, CUs at times will also ask another CU to block the IP or range for them. This allows for a users information not to be disclosed. If CU's can't find another CU easily to block it (especially at early morning hours) how would that affect a case coming through AUSC for that disclosure while blocking the IP? -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  08:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A: That's a mitigating factor. I know it probably isn't a current practice, but back in my day as an SPI clerk, CUs would flag me to "block an IP and tell them if anyone complains" to achieve the same result, and I would cautiously countenance similar practices in the present (the CU doesn't need to disclose the account, but that the IP is a checkuser-block). If it occurred during the night, I would again look to the seriousness of the threat posed by the blocked user and if other options were available (like flagging down a steward on IRC to execute an global block) that would achieve the same results.

Comments

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


 * Support. Based on what I've seen of Mbisanz's work in his current roles, I have confidence in his integrity, and I expect that he will find the time to carry out this responsibility. --Orlady (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on candidate's recent service as a community rep and answer to question 8. AUSC exists to ensure that innocent editors are not accidentally punished by CheckUsers and Oversighters. The retiring AUSC, of which MBisanz is a member, failed to do that for Int21h. I feel MBisanz' answer to question 8 infers that he wants to assist apologise for the CheckUser team, rather than provide scrutiny of their actions. We need community reps that are skeptical, not supportive, of the CheckUser and Oversight teams. --Surturz (talk) 04:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So you think that CUs should always have to name a linked account? What if the sockmaster is open about their real identity, and they have a sock account that they use to edit controversial or "profane" topics? Surely they don't deserve to suddenly have their fondness for revealed to the entire world, simply because they also engaged in ? — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  10:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe there should be some minimum level of publicly visible evidence that abusive socking has occurred. Naming a linked account would seem obvious. Otherwise, as we saw in the Int21h case, it is extremely difficult for a falsely accused account to refute the socking claim. Your hypothetical is concerned with protecting a guilty sockmaster. I'm more worried about the CheckUser driftnets blocking innocent editors. Just to be clear my opinion on CU policy is not why I oppose this candidates nomination, rather that he was a member of the previous committee which failed in its duty, and he does not seem skeptical enough of the CheckUser team. --Surturz (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Also based on what I have seen of Mbisanz's work through the years (I have been in WP.EN for a long time), and as stated by Orlady. -- Alexf(talk) 11:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I can think of few people more qualified for this position than MBisanz. I have no doubt he will serve the community well in this post, as he has in the past. 28bytes (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Pretty much what 28bytes says above. I have on occasion been in need of assistance, and Matt's help has always been impeccable and timely. — Ched :  ?  11:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In a perfect world, I'd prefer to avoid editors becoming entrenched on committees like AUSC. Then again, in a perfect world, there would be tons of good candidates to pick from, making it easy to say "thanks for your service, now take a break" to the multi-termers. In this real world, however, there aren't tons of candidates, and MBisanz is a very good choice despite how familiar he is with the furniture. We know he can do the job and do it well; we should probably let him do it some more. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support As per Orlady,28bbytes and Alexf.Long them user ,very active ,experienced in various has been editing without a break since August 2007 and has been in this role as a AUSC member twice in addition to working in  OTRS, being Steward and having Oversight permission .His track in all these roles has been outstanding.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support highly trusted, and I find the argument that he can call ArbCom members out pretty convincing. --Rschen7754 09:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support—superbly skilled; you couldn't find a better candidate. Tony   (talk)  09:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - I agree with Fluffernutter. He does the role well, I see no reason not to allow him to continue. Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 12:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for all the reasons given by other supports, above. He is very well-versed in these things, and I trust him to do the job right. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 16:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - per longstanding commitment and success in the project, plus the support above. Go   Phightins  !  19:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - I agree with Fluffernutter as well. United States Man (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Very qualified to resume the job. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 09:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - In the few chances I've gotten to interact with MBisanz, I find him to be a great, responsible, and confident guy. MBisanz has dedicated himself to this project many times and his continued commitment shows his suitability to continue to stand in this role. Although Fluffernutter's comment about new auditors would be nice, this is not a perfect world, and those concerns that I have are dismissed by knowing that MBisanz will be a great contribution to the team. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  10:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: Thanks for the answers. While i'm not sure if I would agree with the escalation to global block idea, I feel we are thinking on the same line, and your answers completely affirm my support. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  10:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've commented on another candidate for saying the same thing, and to be fair, I need to say the same thing here too - global blocks where there is no demonstrated crosswiki abuse is questionable at best. --Rschen7754 00:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - My76Strat (talk) 07:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, has served Wikipedia well in all offices held. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Kumioko (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)