Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/2014 appointments/Joe Decker

Nomination statement (250 words max.)
I am a long-term, gnomish editor and administrator, I've worked and occasionally still work at OTRS in the Courtesy and Quality queues. I have some experience with revision deletion (mostly copyright and personal public information) and many of the latter I've sent along for suppression. Outside of Wikipedia, I served for five years on the board of directors at a non-profit working with survivors of domestic violence and sexual abuse, another position which required responsible handling of delicate information.

Community inclusion at AUSC provides accountability in situations where accountability is inherently challenging. It is not a role focused on wiki-lawyering, although knowledge of policy is, no doubt, important. It is a role that requires the trust of the community, an awareness of the potential dangers of the oversight and checkuser tools, and the independence required to look at alleged abuses in a responsible manner.

While my current career as a photographer offers little in the way of relevant technical expertise, my former career in software development gave me ample familiarity with IP address structure and software literacy in general. I see the role as being well inside of my technical capability.

Standard questions for all candidates
Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
 * A: I have quite a bit of experience in our deletion processes in general (AfD/DRV/BLPPROD/etc.) and revision deletion (e.g., RD1, personal information in AfC drafts, other personal information exposures reported to me via email). I have some experience requesting oversight, usually for IP exposure or exposure of private information. I don't have much SPI experience, I've reported a handful of socks to a couple investigations, but those have typically been cases of old hoaxes from long-dormant accounts, where a CU would of course be inappropriate.

Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
 * A: Prior my second, photographic career I was a software developer for 20 years on projects such as a browser for set-top boxes, which also gave me a grounding in TCP/IP and HTTP basics. For five years, I volunteered at and was on the board of directors of an organization working primarily with survivors of domestic violence and rape, some of them minors, a position which included exposure to sensitive personal information and the corresponding responsibility to protect that information.

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: At OTRS I have access to Courtesy and Quality, otherwise no.

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 don't believe that withholding such information falls within the remit of the subcommittee, as it wouldn't be a violation of the checkuser or privacy policies. In any case, I will still be happy to share my personal opinion.
 * As a matter of general principle, I believe that contributors should generally have transparency as to the type of information being used against them or which, conversely, might support them. The issues get murkier when we extend this to technical specifics. I would imagine that CU investigations produce a fair bit of irrelevant data, and in the extreme, I speculate that in some (perhaps unlikely) situations detailed CU results might include information involving the privacy of other, uninvolved contributors. In the latter case, disclosure of information would likely be a policy violation and fall within AUSC's remit.  --j⚛e deckertalk 16:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What are some of the criteria you would use to determine if a CU check was valid? --Rschen7754 03:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Was the checkuser uninvolved? Was there a reasonable basis for believing that there was abuse to investigate with a check, e.g., behavioral evidence?  Was there a reasonable basis to believe that the information from a CU might help prevent that abuse going forward?   Was the information obtained by the check handled appropriately, e.g.., within the bounds of our privacy policy?  --j⚛e deckertalk 16:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What is your understanding of the need for cross-wiki coordination between local CheckUsers and stewards? --Rschen7754 03:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Investigations of cross-wiki abuse that require CUs for accounts on multiple systems are going to generally require a Steward for their cross-wiki CU toolset, in part because some wikis have no local CUs at all (e..g, Icelandic), some that do may still not have one available in a timely manner, and most of all because fo the practical impossibility of coordinating a broad set of checks only via local CUs across a wide range of Wikis. Similarly, taking action where necessary across a range of wikis (e.g,. blocks) would need to be coordinated if not acted on by a Steward.  What actions were taken and why should flow back to the local CUs as well--local CUs are going to want to know about global socks and their behaviors in case they recur, and so on.  --j⚛e deckertalk 16:14, 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 03:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Essentially, negative, false statements about people which could damage to someone's reputation may be suppressed. "Joe stole money from Fred's bank" might be suppressible under this clause, but not "Joe's a (extremely nasty word)." Policy doesn't expect an oversighter to be a lawyer, and the Foundation has one at the ready if there is doubt, but in completely obvious cases, policy prefers that an oversighter act without that additional process step. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments

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