Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/2014 appointments/Avraham

Nomination statement (250 words max.)
I am volunteering to serve once again as a member of AUSC. As a checkuser and oversighter for the English Wikipedia project for a number of years, I believe that I have gained valuable experience in understanding the nature and limitations of the tools themselves, as well as the opportunities where they should, may, or should not be used; the types of information which may be released; and how privacy issues should be dealt with. Having served as a community member of AUSC (2012–2013), and as a current member of the Wikimedia foundation Ombudsman Commission, I have experience in dealing with situations of potential privacy violations and improper use of tools and understand the demands of the role. Thank you for your consideration.

Standard questions for all candidates
Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
 * A: I have experience with the tools, being a checkuser since 2008 and an oversighter since 2009. I have served on AUSC before (2012–2013) and am a currently sitting Ombudsman, so I have experience in investigating and responding to claims of tool misuse.

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


 * A: Having used the tools for over 5 years, I am comfortable with their abilities, limitations, and proper usage.

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 serve the Wikimedia Foundation and all its projects as a steward and sitting Ombudsman; I serve the English Wikipedia project as an admin, bureaucrat, checkuser, and oversighter; I serve the Wikimedia Commons as an admin and oversighter; and I serve the Wikimedia Meta project as an admin. I am an OTRS volunteer with access to the following queues: info-en (f), Permissions, Commons, info-he (f), Stewards, Sister projects, and oversight-en-wp.

Questions for this candidate

 * What are your views on whether evidence against a contributor subject to an Arbcom case ought to be shared with the contributor, so that they have the opportunity to add or refute the evidence? In particular I am concerned with check user details which may be both conducted in secret, and the results and deductions from it, withheld from the contributor. Fæ (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * According to both the Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy, and the English Wikipedia project privacy policy, the checkuser running the test is allowed to share the information with ArbCom as it relates to protecting the project and its users. To the best of my understanding, if ArbCom were to share the private metadata of a contributor with THAT contributor, it would not be a violation of the privacy policy as the policy is meant to protect this information from being used to deleteriously affect the user's privacy, and sharing with the user him/herself cannot do so. Therefore, I believe your question does not pertain to the proper functioning of the AUSC, and should more properly be addressed to those who volunteer to serve on the Arbitration Committee. If I may ask you to explain, why do you believe this question is pertinent to AUSC? -- Avi (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The AUSC serves as a complaints body and the terms of the committee state "AUSC audits and inspects all use of the CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia". Unnecessary secrecy may be as damaging to Wikipedia and degrade trust in the long term, as much as cases of privacy being compromised or flouted. --Fæ (talk) 03:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not an issue that relates to improper use of the CU or OS tool; that is an issue with once the tool is properly used, what is done with the gathered information. As such, that is an issue regarding the possible existence of a particular culture regarding the English Wikipedia project in general and its Arbitration Committee in specific. If you believe information should be released more widely than it is now, that needs to be addressed with those who you feel are not releasing the information—not the AUSC. -- Avi (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you believe serving on both the Audit Subcommittee and the Ombudsman Commission reflects a conflict of interest? Please explain your answer. If yes, please explain how you intend to handle any conflicts that may arise. Thanks. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 19:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I do not believe that serving on both reflects a conflict of interest; both roles are intended to protect Wikimedia projects and members from improper use of specific tools. There are slight differences between the roles. The OC has a Wikimedia-wide purview, but its remit is solely on investigating alleged violations of the Wikimedia Privacy Policy. The AUSC has a much narrower purview, the English Wikipedia project, but a somewhat wider remit in that it reviews 1) usage of both CU and OS tools, and 2) is not constrained to potential violations of the privacy policy. However, I do not see where or how the two can come into conflict. If someone complains to the OC concurrent to an AUSC investigation, both the OC and the AUSC would have the same exact access to the necessary information: AUSC as local CUs and OC as global CUs. If a situation which would create a conflict would arise, I would recuse myself; just as I would have recused myself if the either the AUSC were to investigate me or the OC received a complaint about an action of mine. Is there some situation which you have in mind? A concrete example would be appreciated. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There weren't any specific situations I had in mind other than the ones that you covered. I was just curious to hear your thinking about this. You answered to my satisfaction. :-) --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You have, over time, accumulated a lot of roles, which include: Ombudsmen commission member, Steward, Wikimedia Commons admin, Wikimedia Commons oversighter as well as Administrator, Bureaucrat, Oversight and Checkuser here on the English Wikipedia. That's a lot of hats. It might well be considered among the highest workload commitment I have seen of any volunteer here. So I took the liberty of arranging a summary of your rights and your activity levels since the arbitrary date of March 2014 (just happens to be steward reconfirmations) before going to my question:


 * {| class="wikitable"

! !! Steward !! Enwiki CU !! Enwiki OS !! Enwiki 'crat !! Enwiki sysop !! Commons OS !! Commons sysop
 * Logged actions between March and July (5 months) || 2 || 6 || 10 || 0 || 0 || 6 || 2
 * }
 * }


 * So here comes my question, are you sure that as somebody with very low levels of activity in your current roles you're in a position to take over more responsibilities?  Snowolf How can I help? 22:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That is exactly why I am volunteering for this role again. I found myself with less time than I wanted to work on Wiki[p|m]edia-related activity, which is why I volunteered for the OC when I did. It is a role in which less activity is expected (OC members (and AUSC as well) are exempt from CU/OS quotas during their tenure), but experience is valued—I have run hundreds of checks and performed hundreds of suppressions. When the call for AUSC volunteers was made, I sent an e-mail to the English Wikipedia Arbcom stating pretty much the same thing, along the lines of now that I am less active and on OC, it would make sense for me to volunteer in this role as well, for which less activity is expected yet experience is valued. -- Avi (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * What are some of the criteria you would use to determine if a CU check was valid? --Rschen7754 03:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * On the English Wikipedia project, the checkuser tool is used to protect the project from disruptive editing and to investigate sockpuppetry and legitimate claims of bad faith editing; for simplicity, I will call all of these "project disruption." Therefore, to determine if a check was valid, one of the first tasks is to investigate what was the disruptive behavior. This would include looking at any relevant WP:SPI, WP:ANI, or other on-wiki pages; asking for the relevant e-mails if the check was made at the request of ArbCom, the functionaries, or to an individual CU; and contacting the CU in question. Another criterion would be the relationship between the checker and the checkee. While not outright forbidden, having a checker be someone who has a adversarial relationship with the checkee is going to raise the specter of impropriety, and would require extra care to ensure that the tool was not used to apply pressure. A third important criterion is how the information gleaned from the check was used: for example, to whom was it sent and where and how were the results posted. While all checks are unique, these are some of the criteria I use. -- Avi (talk) 05:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What is your understanding of the need for cross-wiki coordination between local CheckUsers and stewards? --Rschen7754 03:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The main vehicles for EnWiki CU/Steward co-ordination are the CU mailing list and the CU wiki. Technically, stewards may check on any wiki, including a home wiki, when running cross-wiki checks. In practice, this is almost never done, and the stewards (you and I included) tend to e-mail the list or post on the wiki when they need results from EnWiki. Personally, I have found that response from EnWiki CUs on the list is rather quick. I also have it a bit easier than other stewards as I (and MBisanz for that matter) are local CUs as well, and we can support both the local and global requirements if necessary. -- Avi (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The global OS policy states that the oversight tool can be used for the "removal of potentially libelous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision." What does this mean to you? --Rschen7754 03:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Advice of the WMF counsel is pretty clear. That would be Geoff, his team, and Phillipe/Maggie in their roles of Legal and Community Advocacy. The second criterion is broader, obviously. First and foremost, my view on the matter is colored by 1) the permanence of the internet, 2) the penetration of Wikipedia, and 3) the total reversibility of suppression, the fact that all suppressions are logged, and the ease with which suppression can be reversed. Therefore, channeling Justice Stewart, while it is impossible to list hard, bright-line rules as to what is "clear" and "unnecessary," I think it safe to say that if the revision in question is obviously harmful to the subject even if true, is itself dubious (thus potentially untrue), and isn't one of the main reasons why the subject is notable, then the OS may, actually should, suppress the the revision, and then e-mail the OS or functionaries list for review. This way, the subject is protected while the revision is being reviewed. If after consideration, the information is deemed to not be worthy of suppression, the OS should simply reverse it. If this is the behavior (backed up by e-mails to the OS/func list) of the OS, then even if the suppression was eventually replaced with revision deletion or completely reversed, I would not consider this to be abuse. Conversely (and let's make it obvious), in cases where the information is part and parcel of the subject's notability, and the OS has a history of editing the article from a specific point of view and uses the tool to further promote that point of view, that would be a clear violation. As there is a continuum, each case must be judged on its own merits, but I hope this addresses your question in the manner you intended. -- Avi (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a proposal to shift the enforcement of the CU/OS inactivity policy to AUSC. Whether that should be done is another question, but if that were to become reality, given the concerns above, do you believe that you would be able to do carry out this responsibility? --Rschen7754 05:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you mean how would I respond to AUSC members now being required to maintain minimal activity? On the one hand, as I described above, I am volunteering because I know my activity level is lower. On the other hand, the activity levels would technically still not apply to me, as I am on the OC as well. Were the proposal changed to no longer exempt OC members from activity requirements, my presence or absence on AUSC would still be irrelevant, as I would then have to comply as an existing native OC/CU on the English Wikipedia. -- Avi (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the question is about being tasked with enforcing the activity policy on other enwiki functionaries. --Rschen7754 13:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, for many months (or was it over two years, I no longer remember), I was the person manually calculating the statistics until someone with better scripting skills wrote a semi-automated procedure, so I'm comfortable with the stats themselves. As of now, enforcement means reminding people when they are close to missing targets, trying twice to contact them prior to removal, and then asking stewards to remove the bit upon agreement or non-response of the CU/OS in question. If that becomes a duty of the AUSC, so be it. It does not take that much time. Well, as long as we still have an automated stats roll-ip process, that is. Manually copy-pasting thousands of entries into a spreadsheet and then using logic to count the names was a bit more time intensive [[file:face-smile.svg|29px]]. -- Avi (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What I'm trying to get at is that if Commons had the same rules for CU/OS, you would have most likely lost your Commons OS bit for inactivity... --Rschen7754 01:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Then say so instead of asking everything but that [[file:face-grin.svg|28px]]! Also, what is the relevance between Commons OS and the English Wikiepdia Audit Subcommittee? While this is completely irrelevant, you do know that there are fewer requests for suppression on the Commons than on EnWiki. Furthermore, in the most recent one in which I was involved in (last week), I decided—and the other OSers agreed—that suppression was not appropriate under the circumstances, so the lack of deleted images doth not inactivity mean. -- Avi (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My concern is that if the proposal went through, you would be enforcing a standard of activity on enwiki that you are not maintaining yourself on other wikis. Before the month of July you had made 2 suppressions on Commons from July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014, while other oversighters have made much more. This isn't like Wikidata which may see 5 total requests in a 3 month period... --Rschen7754 01:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, as a sitting Ombudsman, I am going to be less active in CU and OS throughout all the projects. I am not certain, but I may currently be the only OC member with native CU or OS on multiple projects, so my activity is more curtailed. Moreover, please realize that the Commons and English Wikipedia are different projects with markedly different cultures. When on Commons, one need to act in line with its policies and guidelines, and similar for EnWiki, but the policies and guidelines of one do not, and should not apply to the other. If you wish to have the Commons implement an activity policy, by all means start the process—on the Commons. I continue to maintain that enforcing EnWiki policies is an EnWiki issue, one with which I have already stated I would have (and have had) no concerns. -- Avi (talk) 02:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments

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


 * I hate being the first one commenting on most of these, but here goes anyway, hoping others will follow... I think I and others have said enough regarding the large number of Wikimedia responsibilities here. Personally, I don't think that trust is the issue here, but rather the ability to perform well in all of these responsibilities entrusted by the community. --Rschen7754 01:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)