Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2012 CUOS appointments/OS/Salvio giuliano

Salvio giuliano

 * Nomination statement (250 words max.)
 * Hello everyone, I am Salvio giuliano, an editor, an administrator and a member of the Audit Subcommittee, here on Wikipedia. I am putting my name forward to keep the tools, I was granted in my capacity as an auditor, after the expiration of my term. While I originally thought I would not use these permissions while serving as a member of the Subcommittee, after noticing the various backlogs, I started doing some checks – mainly dealing with the uncontroversial cases or with the ones where a check is needed, such as account or UTRS unblock requests – and suppressing a couple of edits which contained clear privacy violations or self-disclosures by minors. I believe I have been a net positive, even though I have just dealt with the more uncontroversial cases – owing to my intention to avoid the ones that might end up before the Audit Subcommitee, in order not to place my fellow auditors in an awkward position – and I would like to keep doing this. That is why I’m asking the community and the Arbitration Committee to grant me both the checkuser and the oversight user rights on a permanent basis.

Standard questions for all candidates
Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
 * I have served as an auditor since February and I have also acted as an oversighter since then. Apart from that, I have often used the revdel tool and, before being granted the oversight user right, I made various requests that edits be suppressed and they were all accepted.

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

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?
 * As an auditor, I hold both the oversight and checkuser user rights and I have access to the oversight-en-wp OTRS queue.

Questions for this candidate

 * Please describe your familiarity with the Wikimedia Privacy Policy, Meta Oversight Policy, ENWP Oversight policy, and ENWP Outing policy. Also, without breaching privacy, for each of these policies, give an example of a time that you have used the policy when evaluating a situation or taking action. Pine ✉ 01:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As an auditor, I have familiarised myself with all these policies as I need to thoroughly know them to fulfill my duties which is why I periodically re-read them to make sure I remember them correctly. That said, when acting as an oversighter, it is quite rare to have to deal with the Foundation's privacy policy or with the global oversight policy, because they are more general  in particular, the privacy policy regulates which private data are gathered, who can access them and when they can be released to third parties . Oversighters usually have to interpret en.wiki's oversight policy, which builds upon these two policies, along with WP:OUTING, in certain cases, to determine whether one or more edits are eligible for suppression. Having acted as an oversighter since my appointment to the AUSC, I have had to evaluate whether an edit contained non-public personal information multiple times. And, as a consequence, I have suppressed various edits containing references to real names, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, along with the occasional self-disclosures by apparent minors.
 * How do you reconcile your use of "butthurtness" ( on 22nd June) to generally ridicule others expressing opinions in a user block discussion, along with the inflammatory description "disgraceful kangaroo court" with the exemplary civil and respectful behaviour our community requires of Oversight members? Thanks Fæ (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have scary psychic powers? As in, did you anticipate the last question back in March when you unblocked a fine editor who had been called a homophobe by Fae for losing his cool with Fae’s supporter, the currently banned user and Commons admin Russavia? Your prophetic comment at the time was “I'm taking a risk here, I hope this doesn't come back to bite me in the bum.” Fae couldn't resist butting in and left this gracious reply: “Salvio, I assume that you are fully aware of how a cosy wink in your above statement, and arbitrarily referencing bum, will appear to all onlookers in this background of homophobic allegations. Exactly what message are you giving out here by making such a joke?” Will there be less butts and more ifs ass time goes by? Must we remember that sometimes a butt is just a butt? Can you see a short, dark stranger casting a vote for you any minute now? DracoE 10:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if covert homophobia may account for some of those comments. Outright homophobia may be caught quickly here. Insinuations and code words allow jibes to be thrown while maintaining plausible deniability. In retrospect, do you think your handling of those matters would have been better without using the words you did which in this context would likely be perceived by gay people concerned with homophobia as being inflammatory.NewtonGeek (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In order to allay the concerns about homophobia, are you able to point to any examples of your using bum/butt/arse metaphors when none of the participants in the discussion were known by you to be gay and when the topic was not related to homophobia or other gay-realted subjects.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "To bite in the arse/ass/bum" is a common expression which has nothing to do with homophobia; Fae's concerns that my words could be interpreted as homophobic were dismissed rather quickly by the community, if you check the archived ANI discussion. "Butthurt" is a very common meme and, again, has nothing to do with homophobia and, besides, neither of those expressions was used in relation to Fae. I refuse to search my contributions to find occurrences of "arse/ass/bum", because I don't intend to prove a negative and, if you pardon my bluntness, my time for Wikipedia is limited and I'd rather spend it in more useful ways. I am not a homophobe and I consider the implication that I may be one offensive. If you believe I am one, then prove it, but, as far I'm concerned, two common expressions are not enough to prove anything: they are merely that, common expressions.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 12:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sometimes an internet meme is not appropriate on WP, especially if it damages editors who are openly gay males. The rights you are asking for are very serious. You have not even reflected on the way an editor has expressed that you have made him feel singled out and uncomfortable here except to give the impression that you have no reason to answer to anybody for anything. This is not a good indication of how you would respond to increased power. I've included a quote at the end from an editor who posted it on Wikipediocracy. This editor is part of a coordinated group attacking Fae. Your promotion to a higher level of authority has been promoted at Wikipediocracy. Would you find anything in this quote objectionable if it were posted on Wikipedia? If yes, how do you think the writer should be dealt with on Wikipedia? Do you think there should be any serious repercussions for expressions such as this? "You'd never be able to chat to him about holidays in Cornwall, no talking about the nice little cottage, or where you had gone camping. Suppose it would be OK if you'd gone to France 'cos then you could describe the Gite, though he'd probably say you were misspelling GIT on purpose. Talking about food would be a drag, as you couldn't mention chicken, cod, nor fruit, and certainly not cakes on a dish in a basket, or plate." NewtonGeek (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have never had any problems explaining my actions, when asked, and above all I have never had any problems apologising; I have done so many times on Wikipedia. However, to imply that someone's actions may be due to covert homophobia or that they used code words [that] allow jibes to be thrown while maintaining plausible deniability, in my opinion, is not a way to solve a disagreement, but rather it only serves to inflame the situation. If I may be entirely honest, I consider your words a borderline personal attack. That said, due to my studies, I firmly believe that, in order to say that someone is acting abusively, there must be some sort of mens rea, of intention, on his part. Some times, the intention is in re ipsa, as is the case with the various throwaway accounts that harassed Fae on his talk page, whereas in other cases it's not so evident. In my case, my words were not homophobic because they had nothing to do with homosexuality and because I meant no abuse of Fae or of any other LGBT editor, for that matter. I wasn't even thinking of Fae when I wrote those words, but rather of the situation, which the term "butthurt" described perfectly, as far as I were concerned. As you probably know, the term is a reference to the practice of spanking kids and has nothing to do with homosexuality. And, honestly, I don't believe you when you say that such a word "damages editors who are gay males"  as has been clearly acknowledged by Fae here. Generally speaking, as I have already stated, I am always willing to explain myself and to discuss any issue which may arise from my actions and I also have no problems apologising  just check my talk page archives, when I realise I've made a mistake, but if an editor starts throwing serious accusations around  for something which is patently meant in an entirely different context , then I admit I'll react accordingly: I'll just ignore him. And this is because, let me emphasise this again, I consider homophobia (and all other forms of bigotry) very serious. And, when it comes to disagreements, you are either interested in a clarification or you just want to stir up drama; if the latter, then I'll not oblige. Regarding Wikipediocracy, where you say my candidacy has been promoted, what do you expect me to say? I do not frequent the site and have never posted anything there; your mention of that factor seems to imply guilt by association on my part  and a very tenuous association, at that . And, in all honesty, I don't think I may apply Wikipedia's standards to something written elsewhere, because you are asking me to decontextualise something and then evaluate it ignoring said context. Wikipedia has very peculiar rules; for one, we consider civility one of the founding pillars. Very few websites share such an approach. Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying I don't like this; in general, I believe this approach helps to create a professional environment, but, as I was saying, it is not possible to apply Wikipedia's standards to other sites, which is the reason why all our policies, except the one regarding harassment, do not apply to anything happening off-wiki. An editor writing those words here, however, would find him or herself dragged to ANI where he'd probably be blocked.   Salvio  Let's talk about it! 22:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, fuck, that's the last time I say anything nice (that's the gist of this idiotic "has been promoted at Wikipediocracy" crap) about anyone anywhere where anyone with a Wikipedia account may see it. It brings out the worst in people. My apologies Salvio. Volunteer Marek  22:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Marek, your apology is appreciated but, as far as I'm concerned, it's really not needed: you did nothing you should apologise for. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 22:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * While you focus on privacy concerns as a reason for wanting oversight abilities, I am curious about your attitude on BLPs, as this is another area where oversight duties come into play. I noticed in the discussion Wnt linked to below that you wanted an image deleted from Commons that was an artistic work created as part of the Santorum neologism campaign. You specifically cited its connection with that campaign, seeking to associate Santorum's name with a product of anal sex due to his attitudes on LGBT issues, as a reason why it should be deleted. My concern is that this may point to a much more restrictive attitude on BLPs here that may become an issue should you apply your oversight abilities in that area. If an editor illustrated the article on that subject with such a work would you try to have that insertion oversighted on a similar basis?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In your question, you appear to be conflating various different issues, in my opinion. First of all, suppression and deletion are very different things: the former is only appropriate under very specific circumstances, which are listed in the oversight policy. This means that not all BLP-vios should be oversighted, rather only edits which contain possibly libellous material can be, ergo if such an image was added to our article on the subject, I would clearly not suppress it. In general, I do acknowledge that my approach to BLP is a tad stricter than that of the rest of the community and, to tell the truth, I personally believe that the article about the santorum controversy has no place in an encyclopaedia, but, then again, you do not see me deleting it, because, honestly, I am not out of touch with reality: I can recognise when consensus is against me and in those cases I do not use any of the tools at my disposal. More to the point, no matter what my opinions regarding BLP are, suppression is only meant for potentially libellous material which means that there is a higher threshold to be met compared to "generic" BLP-vios  and I can separate my opinions as an editor from my actions as a sysop or functionary. Finally, don't forget that there also is a mailing list for functionaries who need second opinions  which I have recently used to discuss whether an edit could be oversighted, and that, in the event I should go rogue and suppress such an image, I expect my actions would quickly end up before the Audit Subcommittee, whose purpose is to investigate misuse of tools, and be undone by a fellow oversighter.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 06:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I wrote, "The rights you are asking for are very serious." You wrote, "there is no power in being an oversight." I believe oversighters can hide actions permanently and that those actions may not be retrievable by anyone. Is that correct? How do you see that as not having no power?
 * Dude, you have 5 (five) edits to your account. Go back to whatever banned username you came from and quit trolling - since it's pretty self evident that this account was created with the sole purpose of trouble makin'. Volunteer Marek 01:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How is that apparent? I Have asked questions to someone you state your wrote flattering things about on Wikipediocracy. These elections are being discussed there. I would like this candidate to answer the questions before he is given a lifetime ability to do use tools that others at Wikipediocracy have pointed out have been abused in the past. You have now been swearing and calling me a troll. That seems like an overreaction to a candidate being asked to answer some questions. I'm especially concerned that he seems unaware of the way some at Wikipediocracy have pointed out that oversighting has been misused in the past. NewtonGeek (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As an oversighter myself, I'd just like to correct your comment on the point that oversight hides things 'permanently', and that 'those actions may not be retrievable by anyone'. Neither of these assertions are correct, and I just wish to clarify this here. Suppressed edits can be viewed by all other oversighters, and can be undone or reduced to revdel as necessary. Furthermore, we have the AUSC, who's job it is (amongst others) is to vet suppressed edits and their associated logs. It's not a permanent black-hole, by any means - Alis o n  ❤ 03:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you saying you believe the oversighting tools have not been misused in the past? Are you saying that any misuse in the past has actually been undone? Was the oversighting at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Rogers_(journalist) done appropriately?NewtonGeek (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There have been inappropriate suppressions of edits, in the past which is not surprising, considering all tools have the potential to be misused. The Audit Subcommittee has investigated them and taken the steps it deemed appropriate, which have varied depending on the circumstances of every single case. Regarding, Chris Rogers (journalist), there are no suppressed edits., an administrator, deleted the old article and recreated a new version thereof. I don't know whether his actions were appropriate or not as I'm not familiar with the situation and, to tell you the truth, neither do I intend to familiarise myself with it only to reply to a question here.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 15:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Salvio, you have not responded to my serious concern above. You appear not to understand the level of responsibility that goes with being an oversighter. You wrote, "there is no power in being an oversight." How do you understand this position as one in which the person has "no power?" Also, Volunteer Marek and Alison are active on Wikipediocracy as are a number of others who have supported your candidacy. Do you believe pressure is being brought to bear there and by Wikipediocracy affiliated editors here in order to facilitate and seek to ensure that you obtain this position of oversighter which you may have equated with "no power?"NewtonGeek (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I fear I have to invite you to read my words once again, as you appear to have confused two very different concepts concepts: power and responsibilities. Never have I stated that the position of functionary is not one of trust and responsibility; I merely stated that there is no intrinsic power attached to being an oversighter. And I stand by that. Regarding Wikipediocracy, let me point out once again that what users do on that site has nothing to do with what I presently do or will do in the future, here, if appointed. Considering the fact that, to repeat myself, I have never posted anything on Wikipediocracy and that I do not frequent the website, I fail to understand what your "serious concern" is. I am already an oversighter albeit only for a one-year term, as presently I am a member of the Audit Subcommittee, the body which monitors how Functionaries use their tools, and, as such, I already have had access to private information. So, in short, what do you fear will happen if I am allowed to keep the tools after my term as an auditor has expired? Because, so far, all I've read from you is a generic "your candidacy has been supported by people who post on Wikipediocracy, ergo you must be dangerous and untrustworthy", which does not appear to be particularly impressive.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 15:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

 * Comments may also be submitted to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing . Please note that the candidate will be provided the opportunity to respond to a paraphrased version of any emailed comments; the sender's name will not be provided.


 * Support My past interactions and observations of Salvio have impressed me with his maturity, his patient demeanor when dealing with difficult subjects and/or editors. I think that he will do fine with these tools.   GregJackP   Boomer!   02:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support see CU section. Nobody Ent 02:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have seen Salvio a lot over the last year and have no doubt in his ability to properly apply the oversight policy. Full disclosure: If Salvio is selected, I will become a member of WP:AUSC in his place as the current alternate member.  MBisanz  talk 02:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To clarify (and echo Risker's comments on Ponyo's page) should either Ponyo or Salvio be appointed, the appointment(s) would not take effect until the end of their AUSC term, unless the appointee(s) should choose to resign from AUSC. Hers fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 15:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support-He will use the tools for the good of the community.--Shrike (talk) 11:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - same reason as I gave for my Support for CU position. Volunteer Marek  21:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Like everyone else, I see him as an exceptionally level headed individual who I would only expect to do good things with the extra tools. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  00:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I support Salvio in both regards. If tools are limited and he could only do one, this constitutes my first choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by My76Strat (talk • contribs) 01:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Man, are you available 24x7 on Wikipedia.-- Ankit Maity Talk Contribs 16:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Salvio has demonstrated that he has the maturity and judgement needed to handle thos task. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Usually very good, rarely impulsive. Better than expected performance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 18:02, 25 June 2012
 * Support Seems to have patience, integrity, and a finely tuned bs detector. DracoE 11:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per my comments in the CU candidacy. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support My trust continues from the CU section. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  18:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Rock solid admin, fully trustworthy. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Backs up his actions with solid thinking. I might not always agree with it, but I respect the thought behind it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as it has been more than 24 hours since my question, so it seems fair to assume that Salvio is not concerned about his use of "butthurtness" to ridicule other contributors in a consensus building discussion, and is likely to behave in a similar way in the future. --Fæ (talk) 10:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note In my question, I made no assumptions or accusations of homophobic language. My question related to the simple expectation of exemplary civility and mellowness (in Commons parlance) for people trusted as Oversight members. It is not obvious to me that "butthurt" counts as homophobic language, it is an internet meme, is only ever used offensively and in the wrong context any unnecessary use of apparent sexual related words may be both inflammatory or defamatory. On Commons Salvio did not use the word in any obvious LGBT context that I can see and neither was it especially directed at me personally, though given his past actions on LGBT related issues, I would have thought it wise for him to avoid being seen using language that can be so easily interpreted as intended to be inflammatory in that context. Not everything I write is intended to be read in an LGBT context just because I am openly gay. Putting aside the distracting questions from others, my original question with regard to civility remains unanswered and I see no indication that Salvio would not use "butthurt" or variations to deride and ridicule in the future. Fæ (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - 1. User appears to be trustworthy and competent form what I recall of their actions over the years. 2. the "butthurt" thing shows a general sense of humor and  that he won't be a thin-skinned civility netcop.  3. To negate what is in IMO a very empty oppose above. Tarc (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Tarc, could you please clarify how you heard about this !vote? Thanks Fæ (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why, sure, Fae; I read about it at the Wikipediocracy. I can assure you though that my vote was not canvassed, and that I read this page from top to bottom before forming my own opinion, as you know how those 'ocracy folk like to slant things sometimes.  The primary thing is that the candidate is fully qualified, while addressing your extremely unfair vote about was a secondary concern.  I hope this satisfies your curiosity.  Tarc (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Addendum; I also just now read about it at your Arbcom workshop talk page as well. So to forestall some sort of futile and wrong-headed "canvassed off-wiki!" charges, I would have arrived here via the Workshop route if I had not read the 'ocracy post first.  Six of one, half-dozen of the other, as they say. Tarc (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. I witnessed Salvio as a very fair administrator always trying to keep the balance and explaining his actions well. JCAla (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I was deeply angered by Salvio Giulino's week-long block of User:Niabot for a mild jest "too old - do not want", following a conversation in which he was so involved that he took time to respond to the ideological debate between the time when he blocked Niabot and when he notified Niabot of the block.  Especially when this followed on the heels of his unblock, after mere hours, of User:Youreallycan for a very hostile edit accusing another editor of having a "gay agenda" and telling him to "Fuck off".  (It's all explained in the section linked above).  I am favorably disposed to believe User:Wikiwind's comment in that discussion that Giuliano is "always here to unblock his friends and block those who disagree with him. The worst administrator on the English Wikipedia."  I note that several of the anti-Commons/Fae/Cirt faction are represented in the Support votes above.  Indeed, this vote is presently being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/F%C3%A6/Workshop, where I heard about it.  I simply don't trust this administrator. Wnt (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Keeps cool even when addressing thorny situations. -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  23:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - per my many dealings over the years, I believe Salvio to be a fine candidate. Being bisexual and 'out' myself, homophobia would be a deal-breaker for me but I'm seriously not seeing it in this candidate here - A<font color= "#FF7C0A">l<font color= "#FFB550">is o n  ❤ 03:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Salvio is one of the most trustworthy editors on English Wikipedia, and handing him some more buttons will be beneficial for the community. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 12:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Good candidate showing evidence of patience. Carrite (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I am satisfied with his history and his responses above that he would not misuse the tools.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as per my comments in the CU section.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Trusted candidate. Salvio guiliano is already a well experienced user having prior working experience with CheckUser and Oversight permissions and knows both the CheckUser and Oversight policies quite well regarding their usage. They have worked in the Audit Subcommittee of which they are it's current member. I support them to continue to have access to both the user rights. TheGeneralUser (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Candidate has not responded with sensitivity and diplomacy in difficult situation regarding an editor's feelings. More importantly candidate's answers indicate candidate sees no connection between the extraordinary trust the community would be granting him and power. With power comes responsibility. I have no idea why the candidate skirted this straightforward issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewtonGeek (talk • contribs) 23:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)