Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/2014 appointments/Salvidrim!

Nomination statement (250 words max.)
I have been an admin since Jan. 2013. I am very gnomish in nature, performing many maintenance tasks. I am not very involved in content creation. I often assist in closing discussions and assessing consensus, mostly RMs and AfDs, but occasionally elsewhere (MfD, ANRFC) when there is a backlog to work through. I also pitch in at RFPP, AIV, UAA when there is an urgent need to, and sometimes patrol Edit Requests or PROD/CSD. I, however, regularly file SPIs when the need for CU checks arise, and have requested OS once of twice for suppression of personal information posted by misguided editors. I have been considering applying for SPI Clerkship for a few months now and might go ahead later this autumn. I have the utmost respect for the privacy of others (even if I do not value my own privacy as highly), and I think transparency is primordial in all facets of a community; AUSC is a necessity.

I have not yet "identified" to the WMF but will gladly do so if/once required; all my personal information is available on my user page and I have no particular interest in my own so-called "anonymity". I am not an IRC user, but am open to becoming one if necessary. I have now identified to the WMF, and started poking around IRC. I've also inquired about volunteering at OTRS in the past, but didn't complete registration due to time constraints at that moment; it is also something I plan on possibly doing in the short-to-mid term future.

Standard questions for all candidates
Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
 * A: I didn't know in advance what the questions would be, so I kind of answered this in my nomination statement; although I have been an admin for about a year and a half, I can honestly say I have not become personally involved with ArbCom or any of its members. I only took part in two ArbCom cases that I can remember (and only made an opening statement in both), and both were pretty simple deals. I actually haven't had personal interactions with a whole lot of people on-wiki, thanks to my generally casual disposition, so it's easy for me not to "take sides" naturally. I also think the fact that I have not worked with advanced permissions, especially CU, is a positive thing, as it would allow me to view cases with the "fresh eyes" of an outsider. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;

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


 * A: As indicated before, I am not concerned about my own personal privacy (just see my userpage). I would not go as far as to say I have significant expertise, but my work with an ISP (first in sales and then as a coordinator) has helped me achieve a decent understanding of how IPs work. It also means I have been handling the confidential data (including credit card numbers) of my clients, and understand the sensitivity of private information. I also like to think that working in the customer service industry for all these years makes me better when dealing with people and their problems. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;

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: See my nom concerning OTRS. I hold no other advanced permission on any wiki, just adminship on enwiki. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;

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)
 * A: I believe that, in the spirit of fairness and transparency, such "evidence" should be shared with the subject of the ArbCom case, as long as that evidence doesn't breach the privacy of anyone else, and that the communication of that evidence doesn't reasonably jeopardize the result of the investigation. On one hand, if the evidence, acquired via CheckUser or else, is made up of the contributor's own private information, then there should no breach of privacy sharing it with himself, right? And although ArbCom definitely isn't a judicial court, evidence is normally shared amongst both the accuser and the accused. On the other hand, Wikipedia, while a theoretically "open-project", is policed. It is not a "public space", it is regulated by ArbCom, which is generally approved by the WMF and generally chosen by the community. We, normal admins, regularly block and/or ban editors (either as administrative or community decisions), while providing them, or not doing so, with detailed reasonso. In practice, if ArbCom makes a decision to ban an editor, they are under no technical obligation to explain their reasons to that editor nor to the community. However, I do not think they are being deliberately opaque, and in most cases I have noticed a significant effort to maintain some amount of transparency. But this duality between the expectation of transparency and the fact ArbCom can generally work with non-negligible secrecy is the reason with AUSC is such a necessity. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  13:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

What are some of the criteria you would use to determine if a CU check was valid? --Rschen7754 11:17 pm, Yesterday (UTC-4)
 * A: Was there a legitimate, reasonable concern that a policy was being violated?
 * Was the CU check done unambiguously with the intention of protecting the project and to prevent future disruption/vandalism/sockpuppetry?
 * Was the Checkuser performing the check unambiguously uninvolved in regards to the user(s) checked? ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;

What is your understanding of the need for cross-wiki coordination between local CheckUsers and stewards? --Rschen7754 11:17 pm, Yesterday (UTC-4)
 * A: As I understand it, there is no "Global CheckUsers" user group; Stewards fulfill that role on wikis with no local CheckUsers. Ombudsmen and certain Staff accounts also have "Global CheckUser" access. When a need for a CU check on multiple local projects arise, Stewards generally coordinate with local CUs (normally on the closed mailing list or IRC channel) so that local CUs can perform local checks. Locals checks are generally preferred to ensure that they are locally logged and are subject to review by AUSC. Global CheckUser policy allows Stewards to perform local checks themselves in cases of emergency/cross-wiki vandalism. It is unclear to me from WP:AUSC whether checks performed locally by Stewards (or other non-local CheckUser) fall within the remit of AUSC, and thus will seek an answer on this point. AUSC states: "The subcommittee's remit is restricted to the use of checkuser on this Wikipedia" followed by a list of local CheckUsers; it could indicate that it includes only users with local checkuser access, or that it inclused all uses of CheckUser on English Wikipedia. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;

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 11:17 pm, Yesterday (UTC-4)
 * A: The first point seems generally straightfoward: when recommended of WMF Legal, potentially libelous information can be OverSighted. The second point requires more of a judgement call on the part of the OverSigher; unambiguously vandalistic libel is a clear case, and there is indeed no reason to keep. Libel is a form of written defamation; defamation's definition is a harmful FALSE statement. OS policy allows suppression for potentially libellous material: in other words, when harmful material is potentially false; OS policy also indicates that there must be no editorial reason to keep the revision, which I would summarily interpret as "there is reasonable justification for believing this is false and will never be sourced reliably in-article". That requires a very good dose of judgement on the part of the OS, and I would generally agree that in cases like this, erring on the side of prudence may be advisable. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;

Comments

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