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

Nomination statement (250 words max.)
Hello, everyone. I’m DeltaQuad, currently an Administrator and CheckUser here on the English Wikipedia, which has always been my home. I’ve been active here for just over 4.5 years, about 4 years at sockpuppet investigations, about 3 as an administrator, and about 2 as a Checkuser. I also have a background in computer networking technology, which helps in my day to day operations of CheckUser. In my experience as a CheckUser, I have also become thoroughly immersed in the privacy policy. As a functionary, I’ve also seen the discussion in the functionaries-en mailing list about use of the oversight tool, and how Oversighters determine whether to remove something or not. While I haven’t extensively used revdel, I have some experience and have requested oversight on several occasions myself. I am here to offer my experience and expertise for the Audit subcommittee this year. If invited to join the subcommittee, I will serve a full term. I have multiple ways in which I can be contacted, and I appreciate any questions or comments anyone has. Thank you for your consideration. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)

Standard questions for all candidates
Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
 * A: My experience at SPI is probably the biggest experience (4 years) I bring to this role. As I mentioned in my nomination: While I haven’t extensively used revdel, I have some experience and have requested oversight on several occasions myself. For off-wiki experience, I have had experience with OTRS and dealing with high profile subjects of articles. Also, I assisted in the privacy development and policy aspect for UTRS and ACC. Furthermore, I'm an active participant in the Checkuser-l (help combating global abuse) and functionaries-en lists. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  23:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

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


 * A: I have 3 years of post secondary education in the area of computer networking, which has assisted in my role as a checkuser, especially in large complicated cases. I've also had to deal with sensitive information of people before, including access to a database with names, addresses, phone numbers, emails, people in that household, and more which was all regularly updated. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  23:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

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 am a checkuser locally, and I have access to OTRS queues info-en (f), permissions, and photosubmission. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  23:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Questions for this candidate

 * 1) 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)
 * Speaking as a potential auditor, if you are wondering about the disclosure of the CU results to the editor being a violation of the CU or privacy policy, I would say no per Privacy_policy. Otherwise is out of the scope and remit of the Audit Subcommittee.
 * My individual view as a CU is that I do not disclose the actual checkuser data. My final conclusions (results) are always available to the user. I do not release how I deducted my result, as it could lead to publication of how checkusers are able to detect socks, and they could then better evade checkuser next time. With all that said though, I provide a fair alternative chance for people to defend themselves, especially for long term contributors. I normally ask them to first provide a statement of what happened, and I compare that against the technical information. If everything checks out, I will then ask 4 questions related to their statement and the results. If they line up, then I am open to amending my results or removing any action taken against them. I feel this gives a user an sufficient chance of defending themselves. I hope that answers your question. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  23:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) What are some of the criteria you would use to determine if a CU check was valid? --Rschen7754 03:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * By 'valid' I'm assuming you mean appropriate. If that is not the case, let me know. "Is there a reasonable suspicion that there could be abuse of multiple accounts or abuse of an IP address and an account in a manner to harm the wiki or edit against project policy? Is the person running the check uninvolved and unbiased in determining the results?" These are really the only two questions that needs to be asked to determine if a check is valid. Every other question that can be asked falls under this. A CU needs to be neutral and unbiased in running their check. This ensures the proper results given to the community, and that it's not influenced by disputes or pure speculation. While open to interpretation, 'reasonable suspicion' and unbiased results, are dependant on that not just checkusers would agree that its possible there is abuse, but anyone reviewing the evidence, with the proper technical knowledge (whether briefed or already known) would generally agree. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  21:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your understanding of the need for cross-wiki coordination between local CheckUsers and stewards? --Rschen7754 03:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no direct need for coordination of local CheckUsers and Stewards. Each local wiki can often enough defend themselves (with the right number of advanced permission holders). That said, it is normally mutually beneficial to have such coordination, especially for smaller wikipedias. It prevents sockpuppetry, vandalism, or general damage from hopping from one project to another. Sometimes one wiki will be able to provide an IP range that another wiki does not have, which leads to the finding of new harm to the projects. That is the potential benefit gained from such coordination, which is common in major sockmasters going crosswiki to publish their edits (if they have been blocked on more than one wiki) or in spambot prevention. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  21:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * Part A stands clearly by itself. If you look to WMF Legal for whether they say the edit of alleged libel, and they say yes, then it can be done. Part B, is different. Part B requires a obvious attempt at inserting a statement which is unfounded and could subject a person to harm of their reputation. If there is grounds to believe that it is not true, and no reliable source is claiming it's true, then I would yield it as an unfounded statement. Obvious, is a relative term, and in this case, it speaks to the fact that not just your peers (oversighters) recognize this as an attempt to engage in libel, but any person who was reviewing the case. If there is any doubt, it should be discussed first among oversighters and obtain a consensus before running the suppression. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  21:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) In April 2014 you resigned as a CU due to "time commitment issues" 1, and were reappointed in July 2014 2. Are you sure that you will be able to maintain enough activity for the role? --Rschen7754 03:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. There were two factors in stepping down of which neither apply right now. 1) I was in school for the past several months before my resignation which limited my time. If felt it wasn't fair to maintain the flag if I wasn't going to do the work. I am since finished school. 2) As 19 people can attest to, I sent a message to them at the time of my resignation as it was very likely I was going to have a major change in my life which would have extremely limited my time. That didn't happen as fast as I had thought (hence my request back for the permission) and i've moved on to a new track where that is no longer an issue. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  19:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments

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


 * Having worked with DeltaQuad extensively as a SPI clerk and steward, and about his views regarding CU and SPI, I think he would do well. --Rschen7754 02:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)