Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/2013 appointments/Penwhale

Nomination statement (250 words max.)

 * I believe that a delicate balance between transparency and privacy needs to be struck. This hinges on proper usage of the tools that come with the advanced permissions.. Sometimes a fresh set of eyes is needed to ensure this is occuring, and I believe I can be that set of eyes

Standard questions for all candidates
Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
 * A: I work as Arbitration Committee Clerk to assist in certain situational calls. I also occasionally submit SPI requests while investigating certain editorial behaviors.

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


 * A: I do not have special technical expertise for this role.

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 used to have OTRS permission, until I let it lapse.

Questions for this candidate

 * 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 on involved projects; however, because someone holds an advanced permission on one project does not mean they should be treated differently on another. This is especially the case because each wikimedia project governs itself, and only in rare cases do status on one affect another.
 * 1) What are your views on how to handle underage editors sharing personal information? --Rschen7754 04:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A: It is rather difficult to balance this. The initial approach that I would take is "tell the editor that it may not be their best interest to have that information out there". But common sense should prevail here.
 * 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: Whether there were sufficient reasons to initiate the CU would be the most important one. Otherwise, need to look at situations surrounding the CU - as each case may be different, it is hard for me to say "this is always the way I'd go".

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: Even as an arbitration clerk, I'm generally not privy to information only available to ArbCom - the only exception would be when a case party wish to send the clerks something for forwarding (because of arbcom-l's filter setup). Thus, I don't actually think I would need to "balance" the secrecy as I do not need to keep secrecy for the ArbCom side (can't do that when I am not privy to that info). Thus, I don't think there'd be a reason for me to "ignore" requirements for secrecy.

5: Do you currently have any aspirations for running for Arb in the next election?
 * A: No - I do not foresee myself running for ArbCom anytime soon.

6. 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 If I get chosen to the position, I wouldn't be in a position to give the community member what they ask for, because the reason why I was given the tool is to make sure OS/CU were done properly. Thus, divulging such info would actually be a violation of the rules set forth on the AUSC members.

7: You're currently an arbitration clerk. Clerks essentially do as the're told by ArbCom. Since your statement is very brief, could you tell us what experience you have of 'thinking outside the box' or 'dynamic problem solving'? Also, do you think it would be appropriate to continue serving as a clerk while also serving in a role which might require you to audit the actions of an arbitrator and even find against them? HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A My experience of 'thinking outside the box' would come from my field of study (mathematics) - it isn't really what I could explain in detail here (and I'm pretty bad with words too). As for Clerk - while I don't believe it is necessary for me to resign as Clerk, I would if enough people believe that it creates a conflict of interest. Then again, though, clerks' job is to make ArbCom's life easier on specific pages, so how people view that would depend, obviously.

8a: In question 3, you stated that "sufficient reasons" are required for a check. Can you explain or give several examples of what would or wouldn't be a sufficient reason? -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  06:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A Repeated checks on a certain editor normally should not be done in a short period of time, unless evidence supports that (massive sock farm, for example). It wouldn't be sufficient to go fishing just hoping to get results - but that goes without saying. Otherwise, it still falls to the "is this punitive or preventive" argument in the WP:BLOCK policy - but the fact that CU data can only go back so much make it so that it should never get to that point where CU would be doing checks due to punitive reasoning.

8b: In question 3, you stated that you would also look at the "situations surrounding the CU". Can you explain what exactly you mean by 'situations' and how this would affect proper use of the tool? -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  06:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A The behaviors that caused the CU to be requested. Who requested it; on what grounds was it requested; was the reasoning sufficient; was the check done; if check was done, was it done in a timely manner; does the CU result match the resulting actions - all these are aspects that can affect whether proper usage of the tool was done or not. Of course, common sense would apply in certain cases (for example, editor requesting CU on another user which mutual IBAN is in place may not be done but would be okay if other editors would have done so as well).

9a: 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)  08:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A: I would look at it based on how many times the individual has committed a violation. But I think that if there is not a large number of IP address affected (say, if they'd fall under a /24 range), then it probably shouldn't be revealed fully. Of course, if said editor would fall under LTA, then protection of wiki would be more prioritized - I think of this as a sliding rule where the more violations an editor has committed, the more we have to emphasize on protection.

9b: 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)  08:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A: It is hard - I think it comes down, again, to common sense that if there's an urgent situation, then it should be done. If the level of the violation isn't too out there, then it is okay to be on the safe side and wait for another CU to come on.

Comments

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


 * Oppose I have concerns about this candidate's level of activity being too low.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  22:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the concern - just want to let it be known that I have been on, but it took me a while to get back to this. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 13:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC0)
 * My concern was regarding activity level in general, not just this page.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  22:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have a very high opinion of you (despite your munching on various unaware admins) but I am a bit concerned that you haven't answered the questions in a few days. --Rschen7754 09:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking back through the questions, I haven't found anything really bad on the CU side (though I would nitpick at the "how close was it to the request" and possibly on a few other things). The answer to my question 2 doesn't reflect current OS practice, at least from the outcomes of the OS requests that I've made. But that's not as high of a hurdle to overcome as it would be on the CU side, at least in my opinion. Those and the activity issue would be the concerns, in my opinion - are they insurmountable, probably not. --Rschen7754 10:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am concerned about your general activity level as it seems to jump quite frequently and sometimes remain very low for an extended period of time. You also have only had 2 months since late 2011 where your edit count was over 100. Besides that, reading through your answers above, I am also concerned about your knowledge of the areas. Your answer in 8a was quite vague (so was 8b, but i'm talking about a for now) and mentioned only what would not qualify as valid for a check, but did not mention what would qualify. Furthermore, requested CU checks can have a preventative reason behind them, but still very much be inappropriate to run. Several people come to SPI /suspicious/ that two users are the same person, but they aren't acting out of bad faith to be punitive. It then depends on the level of evidence to support that claim to know if the check is appropriate. Also the time that CU data is retained has nothing to do with a checking being punitive. A CU could have received a nasty comment from an editor, but the retention length won't stop the bad check. (Although, God help us if we ever get to that point where a CU does that, I would trust that no CU would do that) In 8b, you also mention that "in a timely manner", which honestly has nothing to do with a check being appropriate or misconduct by a CU. We've had requests sit for 2 weeks before (obviously not optimal, but not abusive either) and probably longer. With question 9a, you mention that the size of the range is a indicator of if the range should be reviled in a block, when it's more likely how static or dynamic the IP/range is will be the determining factor in whether it will reveal information or not. In some countries it could only reveal a city or metropolitan area, but in other countries it could go to a specific business or person. My apologies if it sounds like this might just be from my knowledge of how CU works and has worked in the past, or even technical knowledge, but I feel that some of these are important factors for AUSC members to know. If you have any questions or would like me to explain anything, feel free to stop by my talk and I will gladly do so. At this time though I am concerned about you being elected to AUSC, but it's nothing directed towards you as a person. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  11:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)