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

Nomination statement (250 words max.)
Hi, my name is Matt and I have been editing Wikipedia for several years now. In that time I have consistently pushed for greater accountability and participated in a wide range of activities in both content creation and policy debate. Further, I am mindful of the responsibility that comes with access to private data, have severed on AUSC previously and having access to OTRS, Steward-ship and Oversight.

While I have previously abided by the practice of avoiding use of advanced permissions while serving on AUSC, I am aware of the recent modification to policy permitting AUSC members to use the tools. If appointed to AUSC, I intend to resume moderate use of the Oversight tool, but am unlikely to be particularly active with the Checkuser tool. I am also aware that I have not been as active as I once was. I believe, however, that I have participated in most of the AUSC matters brought in the prior year, and even if I am not as active on the boards or articles, I continue to follow the various functionaries email threads and policy page discussion.

I am open to any questions individuals may have with regard to my editing and maintain a rather open policy as to my own personal information in the interest of informing others as to any factors they may find important to know with regard to my editing.

Standard questions for all candidates
Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
 * A: I am a current and former AUSC member and former SPI clerk with an advanced understanding of policy and historical context. I was a member of AUSC from July 2010 to March 2011 and again from January 2013 to present. Also, I helped write the global rights policy and have helped maintain the MediaWiki:Robots.txt file. And I am responsible for the creation of the Wikien-bureaucrats mailing list for privacy related renames.

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


 * A: See User:MBisanz/Infobox for more details. I serve on the WMF audit committee and I am a former accountant, so I have an understanding of the concepts of professional skepticism, confidentiality, and document review. I am also a lawyer (day job) and an accounting professor (adjunct), so I regularly engage in analyses that involve reviewing facts, judging credibility, and respecting individual rights.

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: En.Wiki Oversight, Admin, and Bureaucrat, Commons Admin, Steward, WMF-wiki access, Internal-wiki access, OTRS info-en(f), permissions, photosubmissions, Sisterprojects, Oversight-en-wp, steward and DAL queues. Already identified to the Foundation.

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)


 * Let me first state that whether evidence against a contributor subject to an ArbCom case ought to be shared with the contributor is outside the scope of AUSC's jurisdiction, so you might find it more useful to re-pose that question to those who run in the ArbCom elections (to which I have no aspirations). Users can generally receive their own personal information, so, as my fellow candidates have stated, I do not see a privacy concern with anyone (ArbCom, AUSC, or the checkuser) sharing a user's own checkuser results with them.


 * Second, whether details about a user, such as checkuser details and results, and deductions therefrom, should be withheld from the user is a concern that reflects why AUSC and BASC were created (I am focusing on your more narrow question instead of your broader question because the narrow one is more immediately relevant to AUSC). If users had a general right to obtain checkuser details, results, and deductions, it would make it easier for such users to evade detection in the future.


 * However, there are two circumstances where the anti-evasion argument fails. The first is that there may be facts possessed solely by the user that contradict the checkuser. If the user is not told what information the checkuser relied upon, the user will not know that the checkuser's information is incomplete. It is my sense that most checkusers give enough information, even if only on request, and that other functionaries, BASC, and AUSC give enough information on appeal, to negate this concern. The second circumstance is that a checkuser may misstate details and results or form deductions based on bias and that without disclosure of that information, the user (and others) may be unable to show where the misstatements and wrong deductions are. Again, I think that checkusers generally do a good job not making errors and that historically, few, if any, have acted with wrongful intent in making deductions. Also, the ability for functionaries, AUSC, and BASC to review a checkuser's actions serves as a natural disincentive to acting with wrongful intent and an incentive to act with great care in interpreting details and results. While they may not disclose the specific information a checkuser relied upon, those other bodies tend to provide enough information to the user to give them the opportunity to add to or refute the checkuser's information.  MBisanz  talk 23:46, 2 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)
 * What is your understanding of the need for cross-wiki coordination between local CheckUsers and stewards? --Rschen7754 03:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I see a great need for cross-wiki coordination. While Stewards may be limited in what they can share with a checkuser (i.e., the Steward can't always share things from other wikis), the Stewards can act as a clearinghouse to pick up instances where a person evaded detection on en.wiki, but left marks on another wiki.  MBisanz  talk 22:59, 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 03:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This means to me that Oversight is permissible when there is an edit that could be plausibly viewed as disparaging or really harming a person and the removal of that edit will not disrupt the ongoing flow of editing or discussion. There are lots of reasons to discuss things that could be seen as harming a person (see WP:AN or WP:AN/3RR), but oversight is permissible for really harm a person and where there isn't a valid reason to keep it around.  MBisanz  talk 22:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Your activity in some of your various roles has been fairly low for the last several months: Commons admin, steward (including local renames). Are you sure that you can take on the additional work of this role, while resuming your status as an oversighter (which you would do regardless of the outcome of this election, I would assume...) --Rschen7754 03:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (AUSC member comment) To give credit where it is due, MBisanz has attended punctually to every AUSC case this year. I cannot speak to whether he would continue to do so, but as a current colleague of his I am probably qualified to attest that his activity is not a matter for concern. I hope this is helpful to you in reaching an opinion about his candidacy.  AGK  [•] 21:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You assume correct w.r.t. to oversight, but yes, I am sure I can maintain this additional work. As noted above, I have a fairly demanding day job, which I have balanced with my current AUSC duties for over a year.  MBisanz  talk 22:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments

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


 * I'm a bit torn on this one. On one hand, I get the impression that he did well on AUSC for the last year and a half. On the other, I miss him as a steward and wish we saw more of him there... --Rschen7754 02:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a fair part. So far, the global renames part of meta:Steward_requests/Username_changes has been quieter than expected, which is the area of Stewardship I try/hope to focus on.  MBisanz  talk 22:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)