Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/May 2010 election/Oversight/LessHeard vanU

LessHeard vanU
Hiya. I am Mark James Slater, resident in the United Kingdom, 50 years old and a father of two, and a husband. I have edited from this account since March 2006, previously as an ip for a couple of months, and have been an administrator since May 2007. I have 3 alternate accounts, of which only has any substantive edits. I have put my name forward for consideration for the responsibility of Oversight, since I feel it falls within my competence and preferred role within the project. I am no longer the content contributor that I was, and am now firmly orientated toward commentary and advice, interpretation and implementation of policy and guideline, and combating vandalism and disruption to the community. It is this last aspect I feel I could usefully expand by being able to assist in the removal or suppression of content that violates WP:Oversight. I put myself forward as someone who would be scrupulous in application of the policy and where there is any area of doubt of leaning to the side of suppression - since such material may be reintroduced if found appropriate, whereas violations that remain may create serious damage to the project or members of the community - who would, however, initially be content to assist and participate with my colleagues while familiarising myself with the responsibility. As ever, as far as the particular standards of the role permit, I would seek to be accountable for my actions. With regard to the last, I would necessarily amend my Caveat to permit people to contact me with possibly sensitive information with confidence. While my antipathy toward IRC remains, I am contactable upon Skype, Windows and Yahoo Messenger, as well as my Wikipedia email and talkpage. I would be available most weekday evenings and over the weekends, as I have previously been with my editing. I would close by further noting my participation at Wikipedia Review, although I would be unwilling to recommend that environment as a communication option. I was pleased that the ArbCom saw fit to allow me to proceed to this stage in the process, and I am content to allow the members of the community to pass their judgement on my fitness to assume the responsibility of Oversighter. So... Let's get started.

LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments and questions for LessHeard vanU
I know it is asked in the questionnaire:
 * Questions from HJ Mitchell
 * 1) If you are granted Oversight access, how do you think that will affect you as an editor and an administrator and do you think that will (or should) affect the way that other editors interact with you?
 * I am quite sure that the Oversight responsibilities will effect my editing (as in article editing) minimally; it is now so small a part of my contributions that even if it stopped then the net result to the project would not register. As an administrator, I think it will mostly be an extension of my anti-vandal / countering disruption work I already participate in and therefore not. If the requests were in the form of removing personal information relating to the requester, then that is also an extension of my responsibilities in helping editors, of which I have had some experience. Should it effect me (or any applicant, for that matter)? No, we should all be mature and experienced enough to encompass the responsibility otherwise we should not have asked to be considered and likely would not have been confirmed by ArbCom. (Nothing like reviewing other candidates responses to realise one has missed the point of the question...) I very much doubt having these flags would improve peoples perceptions of me. I cannot believe, also, that someone who would have contacted me previously in an admin or editor capacity would not do so because I were an Oversighter - and quite rightly.
 * 1) Do you feel it's important for oversighters to reply to email requests to inform the requester of the action you've taken or not taken?
 * Yes. If I, or another, has used a flag then a "thank you" is the least we can give to someone who took the time to point out such a serious violation. It has been my experience as a reporter to receive such confirmations. If a request has been refused, I think it more important in order to explain why; so that the policy is better clarified and the misunderstanding of it not repeated, and that the reporter is encouraged to contact an Oversighter next time they think they see an appropriate incident. Lastly, of course, a response declining a request may elicit a reply that provides more context relating to the original request which may then result in the request being granted. Communication in all events is essential.
 * Question from Keegan
 * 1) Q. How will you be willing to respond to saying no to a request, and will you actively do it?
 * I would be willing because it is - or should be - part of the remit of the role to communicate as clearly as possible the reasons why a decision is made, so that a better understanding of the policies ensues when a request is declined. On that basis, and the reasons given within the answer to HJ Mitchell's second question above, I most certainly would.


 * Question from User:zzuuzz
 * 1) Other than attempts at outing, what types of revisions should be hidden from administrators?
 * Outing is covered by bulletin point 1. of Oversight, regarding the disclosure of private information that is not readily discoverable. As I see it is part of a duty of care toward individuals that disclosure of such information, whether deliberately or accidentally exposed, should be restricted to potentially as few persons as possible. In the same way, points 2. and 3. are more in regard to the limiting of exposure of content, including administrators, in an effort to reduce the liability of the project. Simply, the fewer people who have had access to such material, whether they viewed it or not, equates to less potential damage. The use of Oversight tools to hide username violations, and to remove serious vandalism, from administrators is policy. As administrators habitually deal with serious vandalism, and often hardusername block accounts, and are already trusted members of the community I might wonder what circumstances might arise where sysops should be unable to view such content, but... if instructed to oversight or suppress such instances then that is what I would do.

You mention that "possibly sensitive information" is the only reason you would override your caveat ("I shall consider that the sender has waived any claim of privacy...").
 * Questions from JamieS93
 * 1) Q. Please expound specifically on what types of cases you would consider under the umbrella of "claim of privacy", and which cases you would disregard that.
 * Any email I would receive as part of the role of Oversighter would be exempt from my caveat - I will make the necessary alteration to make that clear should I be one of the successful candidates, and upon confirmation that the WMF are satisfied with my bona fides. The caveat as worded is something I feel necessary to enable me to better perform the task of sysop, and was written specifically for that purpose.
 * 1) Q. Because you are "not bound" by privacy requests, does your caveat mean that you are willing to repost or provide copies of conversations with others against their will? Do you see merit to keeping certain (perhaps not blatantly sensitive) email communication private, or no?
 * Last point first; people have entrusted me with sensitive information by email - and this is the first and possibly the only time I have noted that fact. Nothing I have received has made me consider divulging the contents. I will also say that I have been notified by a couple of people commenting they will not provide certain information because of my caveat, and again it is only in this context that I mention it. The first point is that by contacting me via off Wiki under notice of my caveat means that I do have their permission to disseminate the contents of such messages, and thus it cannot be against their will. That is the entire raison d'etre of the caveat. It is also the reason why I would amend it in such a way so that I would be able to perform the task of Oversighter, should I be granted that position of trust, without compromising the privacy of the reporter, the subject or any other individuals involved.
 * 1) Q. Do you think your caveat, even if it gets amended, may interfere with others' trust in you as an oversighter? Why or why not?
 * Well, since it would be amended were I to be granted the communities trust to undertake the responsibility I am unable to answer what difference the current styling would make to peoples perception. In an amended form - and I am confident I can do so unambiguously - the answer is no. It would clearly define the different expectations regarding privacy and non-disclosure in relation to the separate roles of Oversighter and sysop. In the former, I would only release such information as is required to enable me to undertake the role of Oversighter to persons with the same or greater obligations to confidence than me. In the latter, the status quo would remain.
 * Comment Good questions. I had been anticipating something, and these were well considered and constructed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Question from Happy-melon
 * 1) All CheckUsers and Oversighters are members of the functionaries-en mailing list, a forum for discussion and co-ordination of privacy-related issues which affect any and all areas of Wikipedia. What qualities and perspectives would you bring to such discussions?
 * Qualities? Hmmm... I suppose I would consider myself an effective communicator, in that I can usually convey my point of view comprehensively (if not always succinctly). I think I have the ability to both comprehend and absorb other points of view, although you may need other peoples input toward that point. I certainly try to. I should think that my participation in a topic I am involved in would be consistent - I am unlikely to drop out before it is concluded. As for perspective, it would be as someone who is rather wedded to the ideal of transparency and communication. While I understand the nature of Oversight and Checkuser necessarily involves an expectation of privacy, I would possibly seek to present a pov that was orientated toward disclosure where possible so to test that the appropriate standards in the application of non-disclosure are maintained. I also regard myself as something of an "outside of the box" thinker, so I could be someone who may offer different options when discussing practice and policy application. Truth is, though, I have no idea of how the role, my presence on the mailing list, or any aspect might effect me - or the environment - should I be permitted to participate. I will simply be me, I suppose. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)