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

Nomination statement (250 words max.)
Hello everyone, I'd like to put myself forward as a candidate for the Audit Subcommittee. I am a newish (7-8 months) admin, an arbitration clerk and SPI clerk as well as an admin on the request an account tool and an OTRS agent.

As an SPI clerk I've seen and experienced the level of evidence various CUs expect before running a check. This experience is valuable, I believe, as it allows me a varied and independent insight into the current expectations of the CU team. Also regarding CU, I've used the tool on another (non-WMF) install so I know the type of information it provides and am confident that I can assess what it’s telling me, again due to experience in real life and on/off wiki.

As an ACC admin, OTRS agent and in my real life, I am privy to a large amount of personal, private information and am used to keeping information confidential and working out what can and can’t be disclosed.

I see the role of an auditor to be a 'watchdog', checking and investigating the use of CU/OS on their own initiative and in response to community concerns. This is vital in a system which by its nature is secretive to ensure the confidence of the community in the use of CU/OS and confidence in actions taken by users with CU/OS.

Please feel free to ask questions here, on my talk page or via email. Kind regards, Callanecc.

Standard questions for all candidates
Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
 * A: I believe I've summed this up in my nomination statement however just a quick summary and a bit more. As an SPI clerk I've a seen pretty large array of cases where CU has been requested for various purposes and where CUs have both checked and declined to check for various reasons. I've also had opportunities to see different ways CUs deal with blocking IPs and not inadvertently disclosing who those IPs are used by.
 * Being an arbitration clerk has given me a good idea of some of the inner workings of the Committee. I believe this is important in a role which works both in conjunction with (that is, having three arbs on AUSC and the Committee having the authority to action AUSC findings/decisions) and separate from (auditing the actions of arbitrators) ArbCom.
 * As part of my OTRS work, I've responded to emails from people who are very unhappy about how they believe they've been treated, so have had to communicate with them and try to solve the problem.
 * Based on the revision deletion statistics page I've made 213 logged revision deletions (more than that number of revisions deleted) since getting the tools, from memory I've also been asked to justify one of them which was oversighted after I'd revdel'd and request oversight.

Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
 * A: I've worked for the IT department of a reasonably large institution. My work partly involved investigating the actions of people using the network, including identifying them through subnets, user agent and login details. Due to this and as part of other roles I've been privy to personal and confidential information about people, including my peers, which I can't share with others or with them.

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 don't currently hold any advanced permissions on WMF projects. I currently have access to info-en, permissions and sister projects (Commons and Wikidata) on OTRS. I'm also an admin on the request an account tool.

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)
 * I think it's important to note that the AUSC wouldn't have jurisdiction here as it doesn't involve a possible breach of the privacy or CU policy (assuming there was adequate evidence to run the check in the first place). That is, it's not that too much information has been disclosed but that information hasn't been disclosed.
 * My personal opinion is that I share your concern regarding not enough information being disclosed for a user to be able to adequately defend themselves. How much information is disclosed depends a lot on how definite the link it. If a CU asks someone if they are related to another user they could very well be (depending on the size and use of the IP/range) breaching that user's privacy. I would expect that in most circumstances the user could be told that CU information was used in the decision to sanction, however it really depends. In a sense natural justice demands that the user be given adequate opportunity and to defend themselves (which is a principle I feel strongly about and will apply to AUSC investigations where possible), however in some cases allowing them this information could make it more difficult to detect socking in the future. The judgement call and accountability sits with the person issuing the sanction and of those who hear the appeal (assuming they do appeal) and in the system we have with the people CU combats sometimes that's what's needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:08, 1 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)
 * My primary criteria is whether the CU believed in good faith the check was in the best interests of the project and that they had seen evidence supporting a check I would likely say it’s a valid check. In terms of a criteria and things I'd look into:
 * a) The CheckUser
 * Impartial
 * Uninvolved
 * Previous history of checks (have they got a record of contentious or poor checks?)
 * Acting in good faith
 * b) The Check
 * How strong was the behavioural evidence
 * Was the check appropriate and necessary (WP:CHK)
 * Was the check within the grounds for checking and done in order to prevent or reduce potential or actual disruption, or to investigate credible, legitimate concerns of bad faith editing (WP:CHK)
 * Did the CU initiate the check on their own initiative (no other input) or was it requested and/or endorsed on/off wiki – this mainly for my information rather than an indication that they did something wrong. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:45, 5 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)
 * Given the increase in SUL accounts and a number of sockuppeteers and socks who get blocked on mulitiple projects I believe it's very important that local CUs and stewards coordinate their activities. If for no other reason than we all have limited time and it makes little sense for a CU to be run on numerous projects, the accounts be blocked then locked when with some coordination and targeting of effort a steward can do the check once and lock the account(s). However it is important to note (as I've been told at SRG before) that sockpuppetry by itself is doesn't warrant a lock and there needs to be cross-wiki abuse for the initial lock at least. In terms of the AUSC role in this, I see it as negligible to non-existent as CUs can share with stewards the same information which they can with any CU, hence no breach of privacy policy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:45, 5 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)
 * I think it's important to consider that the local WP:OS policy is slightly more restrictive as it asks OSers to consider whether RevDel is more appropriate rather than it just being approved for use. The first phrase (a) seems to be there to allow OSers to act on advice of the counsel (perhaps so they can do it themselves or request a community OS to do it for them). The second phrase (b) states that it must be clear that the information is (potentially) libelous and that there is no reason to keep the revision available to admins (since it would meet RevDel criteria). An example I could think of (regarding a reason to keep the edit just RevDel'd) would be if a sockpuppeteer continues to insert the same information which allows their socks to be easily identified. It makes sense to keep the master's edits viewable to admins (and non-OS CUs) so that they can identify socks. Another reason could be revisions on a widely used discussion board or talk page (where a large number of revisions would need to be hidden) where OS would disrupt editors' ability to follow discussions and look up past revisions. Regarding an AUSC investigation: if the OS can show me that in good faith they believed the OS was in the best interests of the project and that the reasons to OS outweight the reasons not to then I'd very likely (dependent on if there were other circumstances) not to support any sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * If appointed, would you continue as an arbitration clerk for the duration of your term? --Rschen7754 03:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Like Guerillero said last year I believe it's possible for a person to be both an auditor and a clerk. However I will follow tradition and resign clerkship if appointed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments

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


 * From what I've seen of Callanecc, he is a conscientious and dedicated worker, and I think that he would do well in this role. --Rschen7754 01:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)